OCR Text |
Show BANK CASE ORDERED BACK TO COURT 111 OGDEN SALT LAKE. July ft The supreme court of Utah sent back to the Second district court at Ogden the case of the Pingree Nationnl bank against Weber county, impleaded with Joseph E. Storey, county treasurer. The suit is one arising over the methods to be adopted in assessing a bank, and after further evidence is taken in the district dis-trict court, and a mathematical problem prob-lem worked out, it is possible that the county will lose $708.33 in taxes already al-ready paid by the bank. The supreme court finds that the record is not clear as to the way in which the court worked out its mathematical problem, prob-lem, which hinges on the amount to be deducted from the market value of the bank's stock for its real estate assessment. It is not usual.' the decision admits, ad-mits, "to remand cases at law for the purpose of taking further evidence, but in a case such as this, where it is merely a question of an amount determinable deter-minable by a positive rule of law, we are qf the opinion we have the power to direct that the proper amount be ascertained To undertake to enter judgment on the record as it now stands would possibly result In grave injustice to one or the other of the parties litigant." Tin bank had a capital stock of J $175,000, surplus of ?75,000 and undivided un-divided profits of ?614.12. The asses-j sor, however, in assessing, determines the market value of the stock at $525,-' 000, and used that as a basis, deduct-ing deduct-ing $66,760 for real estate and an ad-j ditional 10 per cent of the remainder. I Would Recover Taxes. Taxes demanded, $9,593 18, were paid under protest, and the bank sued for recovery of $8.29S.30. The district court allowed the recovery of $613 60 1 on an instructed verdict from the jury. The county insists (hat the court had' no power over the county officials in the exercise of their discretion when no fraud was proved, and appealed against allowing any recovery at all. The bank assigned various cross-er- j rors, and wanted to recover a larger amount The supreme court finds no fault with the method of assessing as adopted, adopt-ed, save in the amount deducted for I real estate, and it says the record is not clear as to whether the amount deducted was the actual assessed value of the real estate, or whether it was the proper amount to be deducted for real estate of some other assessed value, in accordance with the somewhat some-what involved statutes on the subject. In the former case the supreme court holds that the county should have returned re-turned $1,331 93. In the latter case, the county should have returned nothing. noth-ing. In any case, the calculation of the district court appears to have been in error, according to the supreme su-preme court. The supreme court holds that, in a matter of statutory requirement, susceptible sus-ceptible of ascertainment to a mathe. matical certainty, the court may step in, when both county assessor and I county board of equalization have made a palpable error In other words, in such cases it was not a matter of discretion on the part of the taxing officials as a matter of mathematical calculation. "It would be a reflection upon the judiciary of the state and its efficiency in the administration of justice," declares de-clares the supreme court, ' if we were compelled to hold that the courts aro powerless to correct a palpable error, about which there can be no reasonable reason-able difference of opinion." |